Vol. 453 No. 3
8 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the current attitude of the Government to arms decommissioning in Northern Ireland; and the reasons for the change in the Government's policy on this topic from that enunciated by him in Dáil Éireann in June 1994. [9442/95]
The Government has repeatedly made clear the importance it attaches to progress in removing the stocks of weapons held by para-militaries. Dealing with the paramilitary arsenals is clearly an essential element in the peace process and crucial to the achievement of a lasting peace. As I stated in the House on 4 April, it is impossible to envisage a lasting peace without the objective of the removal of paramilitary arms having been achieved. This approach underlies the position taken by Government representatives, both publicly and in all relevant private contacts on this issue.
The Government welcomes the fact that there is general agreement with its view that this is one of the key issues which must be addressed and that it is now under serious discussion in the meetings which both Sinn Féin and loyalist representatives are having with British Ministers.
We hope these discussions will be productive and will significantly advance the prospect of a satisfactory solution. We will be seeking to avail to the fullest extent possible of our contacts and influence to promote this objective.
However, as the Taoiseach and I have emphasised, the peace process is not a single issue agenda and progress in any one area is more likely in the context of movement on a range of issues. The objective of permanent peace will be achieved only by a co-ordinated process which involves movement on all sides.
My own and the Government's position in this regard has been quite consistent. I stated to the Dáil on 1 June 1994 that the definitive abandonment of the use or support of violence for political ends would open the way to participation in political talks and to a role in the shaping of an agreed future for the Irish people and that it was also a pre-condition for participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
I also stated on 1 June that the manner in which a permanent end to violence could be established and verified and the other practical consequences of a permanent cessation of violence would be matters for decision at a later stage in the light of circumstances.
Since 1 June there has been an unprecedented change of circumstances. The ceasefires have changed the situation dramatically. We must not ignore or undervalue the crucial importance of the continued silence of the guns, even if there is a further stage — the actual decommissioning of weapons on all sides — which has yet to be attained.
It is important to avoid a circular argument whether prior decommissioning is the condition for political progress, or political progress for decommissioning. As a political reality, neither issue is likely to be fully resolved in isolation from the other. As the Taoiseach stated in the House on 25 April, "Without progress on the arms issue there will not be progress on other issues. Equally, for there to be progress on the arms issue there are many other issues on which there must be progress".
I hope that the serious discussion which has now begun on decommissioning will be paralleled by serious discussion of the various political issues which are the particular responsibility of political leaders, and which are equally necessary for a resolution of the problem.
Our task is to build momentum by developing progress across the entire agenda which must be addressed. We will continue to press for this, both in regard to the overarching goal of launching comprehensive political negotiations and on the specific issue of decommissioning of paramilitary arsenals.
Is the Minister aware that Deputy McDowell asked him on 1 June 1994 if there could be any talks without the surrender of arms? The question was asked twice and an unqualified assurance was given that there could not be any talks. That is different from what the Minister said today. Does he believe it is a normal political dialogue if one of the several parties to the dialogue has at its disposal, or at the disposal of its close associates, a large amount of arms none of which it has surrendered over the past eight or nine months?
I made the position clear on 1 June last year and stated, as reported at column 1019 of the Official Report:
The definitive abandonment of the use, or support, of violence for political ends would open the way to participation in political talks and to a role in the shaping of an agreed future for the Irish people. It is also a precondition for participation in the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
It is important that we maintain momentum in the discussions which must take place. The Irish and British Governments said on many occasions that they would be generous in their response if there were a permanent cessation of violence. That has taken place and thankfully has been maintained since 31 August 1994. It is the Government's aim and intention to see the removal of paramilitary arms from all sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. We have encouraged Sinn Féin and the British Government to enter into discussions on this crucial issue and other issues central to the peace process. I welcome the discussions and meetings that took place at ministerial level with Sinn Féin in the past number of weeks and the fact that further meetings will be held this week. Hopefully we can build on that and make progress on the decommissioning of arms and resolving other issues.
Last June, it was a pre-condition to entry to the forum. Obviously, that condition has been dropped. Given the Minister's view now, does he support the Sinn Féin demand that all arms be decommissioned in Northern Ireland in which apparently they include the RUC and British Army?
Deputy O'Malley is well aware that arms in the possession of the security forces and the police force in Northern Ireland are legally held weapons. I would make a distinction at all times, as I am sure the Deputy would also, between arms held by para-militaries and those held by the legitimate forces of the State.
10 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if there has been a debate at EU level on when member states could meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for official development assistance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9182/95]
The United Nations target is one of the subjects which comes up for discussion from time to time at meetings of EU Ministers with responsibility for development co-operation. The Development Council meets twice a year. The next Council, which I shall be attending, will take place in Luxembourg on 1 June.
There are big differences in the level of achievement of the member states of the European Union as regards reaching the United Nations target. Some member states, such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, comfortably exceed the target and spend more than 0.7 per cent of GNP on official development assistance. Others have a long way to go before they will reach the target.
Since 1993, Ireland has been making steady progress in improving our record in this area. This year, with a total aid budget of £89 million, spending on ODA is likely to reach 0.27 per cent of GNP. By 1997, we aim to be on a par with the performance of most of our EU partners.
As well as discussing levels of ODA, the Development Council devotes considerable time to the quality of aid and especially EU aid. The EU is by far the largest donor in the world and it is essential that this aid be used in the most effective manner. I assure the Deputy that I shall continue to play an active role in this process.
Is the Minister aware that in Great Britain a number of Conservative MPs have called for a reduction in the figure of 0.7 per cent? At a recent European Council meeting it was stated the figure was plucked out of thin air. Does the Minister consider the target of 0.7 per cent a minimum figure? Will she press this viewpoint at the next Council meeting?
The target of 0.7 per cent was not plucked out of thin air. A resolution was adopted at the UN Gerneral Assembly in 1970 which attempted to arrive at what seemed at the time an achievable target. I am aware that there is ongoing debate in a number of countries, particularly in the UK and US, which would seek to downplay the role and importance of development assistance. In the UK, overall ODA contributions have declined and there have been other cuts in Government expenditure.
The Irish position at international fora is clear. Our policy is to meet the UN targets over a period of time. The Government has been praised for attempting to meet the targets at a time when unfortunately many of the countries are cutting back. We will continue our policy and will press the argument regarding the quality of aid, that it be directed at those who are poorest in areas such as primary health, education, clean water and sanitation. We have continued to support the French Presidency in their proposal to expand the eighth round of Lomé and the European Development Fund, which has not been finalised. Some partners had difficulty meeting the proposal of the French Presidency.
How much will be spent on bilateral and multilateral aid over the next two years? In view of concerns expressed about official development aid will the Minister assure the House that aid will not be given to countries where it could be spent on arms or used to support an undemocratic regime?
The total aid budget is £89 million and of that £55 million will go towards bilateral aid programmes. Intensive and extensive negotiations are held with the Governments and local authorities in the recipient countries.
There are a number of priority countries within Africa and we have recently added a number of others, in particular Uganda and Ethiopia. We are examining the question of extending bilateral status to Mozambique. Human rights are a core element and in countries where there are continuing difficulties all Irish aid is carefully monitored. We maintain a close working relationship with Irish NGOs who may be working in those countries and continually receive advice and information from them which is of great importance and highly valued by the Government in formulating policy. All aid is carefully monitored.
On the figures for next year, I hope we can meet our target, which will represent a substantial increase. One of the problems is that aid delivery has to be planned over a very long period and it can take some time to implement development programmes. We are on course to give a further increase next year and I hope the Government will give a commitment to this in next year's budget.
